PUNEVSKI -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 397
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 397 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:124/1999 | 3 DECEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J WALLWORK J ANDERSON J | 15/12/00 | |
| 6 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal against sentence grantedNon-parole period reduced from 8 years to 6 years and 8 months | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TRAJCE PUNEVSKI THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Attempt to obtain possession of a prohibited import (ecstasy) being not less than the commercial quantity Applicant regarded by sentencing Judge as a "collector" Sentence of 13 years not set aside as excessive Non-parole period reduced from 8 years to 6 years and 8 months |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Punevski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 71 The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87 Diefenbach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 4 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502 Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482 R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321 R v Dinic (1997) 149 ALR 488 R v Laurentiu (1992) 63 A Crim R 402 R v Piercey [1971] VR 647 R v Robertson (1989) 44 A Crim R 224 R v Storey (1998) 1 VR 359 Saad v The Queen (1987) 70 ALR 667 The King & The Attorney General (Cth) v The Associated Northern Collieries (1911) 14 CLR 387 Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : PUNEVSKI -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 397 CORAM : KENNEDY J
- WALLWORK J
ANDERSON J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Attempt to obtain possession of a prohibited import (ecstasy) being not less than the commercial quantity - Applicant regarded by sentencing Judge as a "collector" - Sentence of 13 years not set aside as excessive - Non-parole period reduced from 8 years to 6 years and 8 months
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
Non-parole period reduced from 8 years to 6 years and 8 months
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr R L B Van De Wiel QC
Respondent : Mr J A Scholz
Solicitors:
Applicant : Tully & Co
Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Punevski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 71
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Case(s) also cited:
Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87
Diefenbach v The Queen [1999] WASCA 4
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502
Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482
R v Bilick (1984)…
Details
- AGLC
- Punevski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 397
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 397
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Punevski, was found guilty of attempting to obtain possession of a prohibited import, namely ecstasy, in a quantity that was not less than commercial. The case reached the court where the appellant challenged the severity of his sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was excessive and, if so, whether it should be reduced.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was excessive. The court considered whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing in criminal matters, particularly in relation to the appellant's role in the offence and the deterrent effect of the sentence. The court also examined the non-parole period set by the sentencing judge, determining if it was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
The court found that while the appellant was indeed a "collector" of the prohibited substance, the sentence of 13 years was not excessive. However, the non-parole period of 8 years was considered too high. The court reduced the non-parole period from 8 years to 6 years and 8 months, acknowledging the need for a sentence that adequately reflects the seriousness of the crime while also considering the appellant's role and other relevant factors. The court granted the appellant leave to appeal against the sentence, reflecting a careful balance between punishment and proportionality.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was excessive. The court considered whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing in criminal matters, particularly in relation to the appellant's role in the offence and the deterrent effect of the sentence. The court also examined the non-parole period set by the sentencing judge, determining if it was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
The court found that while the appellant was indeed a "collector" of the prohibited substance, the sentence of 13 years was not excessive. However, the non-parole period of 8 years was considered too high. The court reduced the non-parole period from 8 years to 6 years and 8 months, acknowledging the need for a sentence that adequately reflects the seriousness of the crime while also considering the appellant's role and other relevant factors. The court granted the appellant leave to appeal against the sentence, reflecting a careful balance between punishment and proportionality.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence grantedNon-parole period reduced from 8 years to 6 years and 8 months
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.